Since the mid 1900s Pacific salmon have declined at an alarming rate. The burden for conserving this regional icon has been placed primarily upon the US Forest Service, whose mandates often times collide with state and private interests and whose actions frequently impact local communities. How much affect such small-scale focus actually has on the recovery of salmon is a topic of much debate.My research investigates the highly regulated industry of commercial floatboating and how it may impact spawning salmon. No significant variance in the timing of redds established in areas that are floated vs. those that are not was identified. Despite this, commercial floatboating remains highly regulated, while other more affective actions are minimally regulated.Results indicate that large disparities currently exist relative to how we regulate actions that impact listed salmon, largely attributed to current interpretation of the ESA. Specific examples include high regulation of local level, federally managed land use strategies such as outdoor recreation and minimal regulation of historic and more affective, state managed land use strategies such as water use and irrigation.Those who support broader scale approaches to recovery have begun to call for a shift in management strategies that focus more on the watershed as a whole. Perceived power, effect and value of various land use types play a prominent role in how recovery strategies are directed and whether or not they are consistent with sound science. Land uses recognized as having the most constituent power were identified as having the most adverse impact on salmon and their recovery. Although a shift in management strategies toward a watershed scale approach would benefit salmon and land users that have the least impact on salmon, it appears unlikely to occur because it would not benefit those that have the most influence or power.With uncertainty surrounding global climate futures, and understanding that we must re-configure institutions to provide alternatives to sustain coupled natural and human systems, I call for a watershed scale approach and consilience across disciplines and scales of governance.

Since the mid 1900s Pacific salmon have declined at an alarming rate. The burden for conserving this regional icon has been placed primarily upon the US Forest Service, whose mandates often times collide with state and private interests and whose actions frequently impact local communities. How much affect such small-scale focus actually has on the recovery of salmon is a topic of much debate.My research investigates the highly regulated industry of commercial floatboating and how it may impact spawning salmon. No significant variance in the timing of redds established in areas that are floated vs. those that are not was identified. Despite this, commercial floatboating remains highly regulated, while other more affective actions are minimally regulated.Results indicate that large disparities currently exist relative to how we regulate actions that impact listed salmon, largely attributed to current interpretation of the ESA. Specific examples include high regulation of local level, federally managed land use strategies such as outdoor recreation and minimal regulation of historic and more affective, state managed land use strategies such as water use and irrigation.Those who support broader scale approaches to recovery have begun to call for a shift in management strategies that focus more on the watershed as a whole. Perceived power, effect and value of various land use types play a prominent role in how recovery strategies are directed and whether or not they are consistent with sound science. Land uses recognized as having the most constituent power were identified as having the most adverse impact on salmon and their recovery. Although a shift in management strategies toward a watershed scale approach would benefit salmon and land users that have the least impact on salmon, it appears unlikely to occur because it would not benefit those that have the most influence or power.With uncertainty surrounding global climate futures, and understanding that we must re-configure institutions to provide alternatives to sustain coupled natural and human systems, I call for a watershed scale approach and consilience across disciplines and scales of governance.

en_US

dc.type

text

en_US

dc.type

Electronic Dissertation

en_US

dc.subject

Geography

en_US

thesis.degree.name

PhD

en_US

thesis.degree.level

doctoral

en_US

thesis.degree.discipline

Geography

en_US

thesis.degree.discipline

Graduate College

en_US

thesis.degree.grantor

University of Arizona

en_US

dc.contributor.chair

Robbins, Paul

en_US

dc.contributor.committeemember

van Leeuwen, Willem J.D.

en_US

dc.contributor.committeemember

Yool, Stephen R.

en_US

dc.contributor.committeemember

Shaw, William

en_US

dc.identifier.proquest

2685

en_US

dc.identifier.oclc

659749690

en_US

All Items in UA Campus Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.